The Fairfax press ran another pathetic socially conservative article recently that made me mad. It’s about how being single is supposedly becoming a socially valid lifestyle or social choice. That’s fine, as I am single and believe that it is entirely normal, healthy and preferable to being in a relationship that has lost its magic.
There’s one glaring problem with the article though: it does not mention sex, and neither do most of the inane American single lifestyle websites it references. It’s funny how they left that out. It must have been written by someone in a long term monogamous relationship who has forgotten it exists.
The only interesting site mentioned in the article is Onely, which has introduced me to a broader use of the term heteronormative. Onely explains that:
It goes on to argue that:
This is exactly my position. Like the authors of Onely, I don’t hate, oppose or disagree with love, relationships, marriage or children. Like them, I oppose the mostly invisible and unchallenged belief that long term monogamous relationships are the primary goal in life and the ultimate expression of social status, emotional maturity and sexual sophistication.
I don’t want children and have planned my life around this. I don’t want to ever live with a partner again as I find it claustrophobic. Together, these factors mean that I don’t need a large or expensive home. I’m very comfortable in a one bedroom apartment. The result is I don’t have to work as hard as most people to pay for my life.
I have more time, energy and money to devote to the pursuit of pleasure than most people. I have already achieved the kind of work / life balance that most people can only dream of, but ironically I seem to have found myself in a self-indulgent club of one.
With no biological purpose, sex for me is entirely social. It’s a recreational activity like any other. Some people play tennis, some like knitting. I like sex, as well as going to the movies, motorcycle riding, spending time with friends, cooking, reading and writing my blog.
In terms of love and relationships, I have compromised my natural preference (which is for open and spontaneous sexual experiences without possessiveness or hypocrisy) to fit the serial monogamy model of heterosexual relationships for most of my adult life. Being in love is wonderful, but it doesn’t last. I think it’s basically a hormonal trick designed to bring couples together to have lots of sex for the purposes of reproduction.
Biology is not destiny. With no definite goal for a relationship (such as having children, which requires a long term committment, which requires a reasonably sized home, which requires decades of hard work to pay for it) living in and for the indefinite present is a very different experience. With no future goals to achieve, how do you judge the quality of a relationship?
There’s no strong reason to stay together when circumstances in living apart together relationships become overly familiar and complacent, where every compromise I agree to makes me less like who I really am. I don’t think I can trade faux commitment to a non-existent future for monogamous sex any more. It would be dishonest and my heart’s simply not in it.
I don’t need continuity for emotional security. It’s difficult being the one who makes the decision to end things each time. I get to make the decision but I also receive the accusations of selfishness. I don’t call it selfish; I call it honest. While I can accept monogamy for a limited time if the sex is very fulfilling, it’s not realistic to assume or expect that one person can or should fulfill all my desires.
We don’t do this with friends, so why expect it of lovers? It doesn’t make sense. Remove children, property, prejudice and fear from the social expectations surrounding long term monogamous relationships and none of it makes sense.
Why is it socially acceptable for me to see three movies a week with three different friends, but not socially acceptable for me to have sex with three different friends in a week? What’s the difference?
Sex can be beautiful and meaningful beyond long term and / or monogamous relationships. It can be intimate and emotionally powerful, but it’s not in every instance and does not have to be. Intimacy itself is not necessarily the product of monogamy, but of trust and communication. Sometimes sex is simply fun.
There must be some middle ground between drunken one night stands (which to me are the real emotional immaturity) and the predictable sex of long term relationships. The irony is many heterosexual people desperately seek sex beyond the boundaries of long term monogamous relationships, but they are incapable of acknowledging that this is normal or natural because they’re paralysed by moral propaganda.
I’m comfortable being open and honest about the place of sex in my life, but most people are not, and being criticised for my choices by judgemental (envious) people is tedious. I think it would be far preferable for it to be socially acceptable for people to have multiple partners if they choose. If lovers were more like friends, life would be rich with possibility.
The article that made me start on this rant expects me to be happily single and celibate. Fuck that! If you would like to read something that makes more sense, try the Quirkyalone site and the Quirky Economist.
I am not the only single hetero in these circumstances. About 30% of the population never has children. Many people never marry or partner indefinitely. Not all these people are gay. Where are the hidden heteros?
Surely inner city areas like Fitzroy can provide a welcoming enclave for hetero singles like they do for lesbians and gay men. Dissenting single heteros have been an invisible minority. It’s time we came out.
9 April 2009 at 12:07 pm
love the blog, and this post finally got me to write to commend you on your writings. wether it be rest reviews or interesting historical tidbits, or educational ‘rants’…. i enjoy them all.
keep up the good work!
(and keep up the good sex!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
9 April 2009 at 12:57 pm
Thanks – rational discussion of sexuality is sadly all too rare and I want to encourage people to talk more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
9 April 2009 at 12:32 pm
*raises hands and comes out*
I’ve walked the path you describe for some time now – short relationships, casual sex, no intention of having children and I will never live with another partner. How else could I afford my hedonistic Fitzroy lifestyle? :). I strongly suspect we are not alone in the male camp, but finding women who think like this is rare. They seem to be programmed socially and biologically to want commitment and children. Makes me wish I was around in the free lovin’ 60′s….
Have you heard of and considered Polyamoury? Sounds like it *might* be up your alley. There is a Poly-Vic group that meets fortnightly at Father Flanagan’s on Smith St. I tried it for a year but realised I hardly have the energy for one full time relationship, let alone more. However, there are as many flavours of the concept as there are people who practise it. For some, sex is just a social form of entertainment inside and/or outside their relationship(s).
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
9 April 2009 at 1:09 pm
Sadly I think you’re right on the “finding women who think like this is rare” issue, and the social conditioning in my opinion is even stronger than the biological imperative. I find the desire to own and control someone else deeply unsettling, which means I’m sometimes criticised for not being possessive enough in long term relationships. How weird is that? I know what polamory is, but did not know there was a group that meets on Smith St. How intriguing. Can you tell us more about the role of the group?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
9 April 2009 at 1:45 pm
I think it’s basically a hormonal trick designed to bring couples together to have lots of sex for the purposes of reproduction.
I couldn’t agree more, and I’m a woman. I have a quote on my phone from Russell Brand of all people who said “Love is an illusion. It’s a trick by the brain to make you procreate. It’s a mental illness!”. I think that’s so very true. I’m sick of being asked why a ‘nice’ person like me is still single, why I haven’t had kids yet (turning 34 next week). It’s a choice I have made, fully aware of what it means. I’m sick of society pushing its values on me. If I had the time I’d be out having sex as often as I could!
Anyway thanks for the blog entry, it is a wonderful read.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
9 April 2009 at 2:17 pm
excellent thanks. this is the second articulate article I’ve read about polyamoury in as many days. Its also one of those rare instances in society where both genders are considered equally whore-y and not right for behaving this way.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
9 April 2009 at 2:19 pm
for further reading, http://galadarling.com/article/infinite-relationships, the article is a little shall we say *angry* and too long but alot of salient points.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
9 April 2009 at 2:27 pm
Thanks for posting the link!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
9 April 2009 at 2:24 pm
There’s an implicit message underpinning this critique that anyone subscribing to the tired old patterns of ‘traditional’ heterosexual bonding is just too repressed and reactionary to embrace this bold new world of intermittently converging but fundamentally individual units. I’d argue that there are a myriad of possibilities in heterosexual relationship building, including happy, sexually active, solo status, but also encompassing couplings that last long after the last flicker of Phwoooaaah has extinguished.
At the risk of sounding dinosaur-like, one of the things I have increasingly noticed as I steer my way gently into the business end of life is that the heterosexual, and homosexual relationships around me that continue to grow richer, deeper and more significant for the people involved, are the ones whereby the participants value ‘the journey’ the sense of meaning and commitment that comes from a history of shared experience, both good and bad. This is certainly not the only model, but likewise doesn’t deserve to be relegated to mere “possessiveness.”
I’m a woman, I like sex, I’m happy to have sex without commitment or love when the circumstances suit. However I’m still ultimately uncomfortable with defining the rules of how a relationship will evolve before the relationship has even begun. I wouldn’t engage in a friendship on the expectation that it would eventually play out, go cold, and be dropped, and it seems a self-fulfilling prophecy to engage in a sexual/love relationship on the same basis. I’d prefer to go into each relationship as if it was my last, whilst not trying to keep hold of it once it is done.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
9 April 2009 at 2:32 pm
I don’t think everyone who embraces more traditional relationships is repressed, and when they have long term plans including to raise children then traditional relationship structures make a lot of sense. What I’m saying is that many people continue to base their lives on these ideas even though their life plans are very different. When relationships end it should not be seen as a failure to enact perfection but a recognition that change is innevitable and normal. A friend of mine says I’m rather zen about my ability to live in the present, and I recognise that this is not for everyone. The challenge is to do what is right for you, not what you are told to do by antiquated social norms.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
9 April 2009 at 2:37 pm
The Poly-Vic community describes themselves as “A social and support group for Victoria’s polyamorous community”. There’s a mailing list, social events at Father Flanagan’s as I’ve already mentioned, discussion nights where you sit in circles and discuss issues related to the lifestyle, sexuality, relationships and so forth. Sometimes they organise picnics and other events too. They’ve been around for at least as long as I’ve been in Melbourne (2 years).
The people I’ve met there are all lovely, intelligent people with open minds and accepting attitudes. The only stereotype I’ve noticed is the rather large number of computer professionals (myself included)! Incidentally there also seems to be a fair bit of cross-over with members of the Bi-Vic community.
I’d say the real purpose of the community is to be a haven where you can discuss the kinds of things that are too taboo, sensitive or alternative for the mainstream. It serves that purpose very well. It’s also a way to meet like-minded people.
To paraphrase the under construction website: “For further information about PolyVic, including their social events and discussion groups, please email info -at- polyvic.org.au”
I know what you mean about being considered not possessive enough. As if a sexual relationship with someone means you have to develop some kind of shared ‘couple ego’ and be joined at the hip. (Or in my case, feels like the girls are wrapped around my leg like a small child).
I agree that discussion of sexuality is too rare. Oh no, don’t want to offend anyone and their precious ego’s attached to their social dogmas. It’s not the only issue with such taboos but probably one of the worst offenders.
That’s why I love Fitzroy though, it feels like a place where you can just be yourself. Even as a straight omnivore, I’m thrilled to be surrounded by gay bookstores and vegan restaurants. The diversity and tolerance around here is second to none.
I only found your blog recently but have been reading the RSS feed every day. I find it informative and entertaining – keep up the good work mate!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
9 April 2009 at 2:48 pm
Thanks Brendan. The comments I get from readers are what keep me motivated to write, and it’s so pleasing to find out that what I talk about is relevant for others! I kinda work in IT too so I’m sure I’d fit in – I think I will put the next meeting in my diary now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
9 April 2009 at 3:39 pm
Hey thanks for the article Carla – brilliant, thoughtful stuff!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
9 April 2009 at 4:20 pm
On the subject of sex, I think it’s especially fraught for women as there is such a slut/nice girl dichotomy – men have it a bit easier on that front because having multiple partners is more encouraged and accepted. For hetero women, the only ‘safe’ option is long-term monogamy leading to motherhood, and I mean that’s the only female sexuality that society feels comfortable with. Having one-night stands, short-term sexual relationships, choosing to be celibate (unless you’re a virgin) or choosing not to have kids are all things that society doesn’t know how to deal with and therefore reacts negatively to, so you’re openly pursuing one of those lifestyles you can be demonised a bit.
Of course if society were more open-minded and flexible about how relationships work it probably wouldn’t be such a problem. I’m not necessarily opposed to super-long-term relationships but think that there are different options that will sit well with different types of people. These options are vastly underutilised though, with the majority of people squeezing themselves into the long-term/marriage role just because that’s what’s done or they’re too lazy to think about which alternatives might work best for them. In particular people in long term relationships who get married just because ‘that’s the next step’ bother me, but then I’m strongly opposed to the tradition of marriage.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
9 April 2009 at 4:28 pm
In terms of masculine gender stereotypes, the dichotomy between the ‘contemporary gender conscious man’ and the ‘mysogynist, manipulative exploiter of women’ is one that men are increasingly concerned about being judged against, but I accept your point. It’s so frustrating that many people don’t make unique choices based on their unique wants and needs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
9 April 2009 at 4:25 pm
hey you’re welcome about the article! I found it articulated alot of stuff I’ve been feeling for a long time…
re Brendan “The people I’ve met there are all lovely, intelligent people with open minds and accepting attitudes. The only stereotype I’ve noticed is the rather large number of computer professionals (myself included)!” HAAHa me too (IT)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
9 April 2009 at 4:31 pm
I’m trying really hard not to form any stereotyped opinions about these people before I have even met them!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
9 April 2009 at 6:07 pm
Hey Brian, I certainly didn’t mean to imply that men have nothing to complain about because women have it harder! (Though if pushed, I would have to say that when it comes to attitudes about sex in society, hetero men do get an easier ride than many others. Pun intended.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
9 April 2009 at 6:17 pm
I didn’t think you were saying men had nothing to complain about :-) The price hetero men pay for playing their established roles in society has barely begun to be examined, so there is much more to say about that. Men may have had it easier in the past but I would say that in the current era, women have more power than men in setting the sexual terms of a heterosexual relationship. Maybe we should ask Bettina!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
9 April 2009 at 6:40 pm
Well said, I thoroughly concur.
As society becomes more sophisticated the repressive aspects of former social norms become less able to be justified (note that I do not claim that traditional social norms need be entirely or necessarily repressive). Part of what is going on here would seem to invovle a lag where centuries old social memes become invalidated by various forms of sociological and technological progress (recalling for example that the existence of reliable contraception is essentially only two generations old).
Currents of both social and technological change will continue to bring these issues to the fore. What I hope this will mean is not a single turn from one set of norms to another, but an ever greater plurality of modes of living.
Taking these thoughts a little further, these questions are particularly interesting to me in relation to the potential development of serious life extension and/or human rejuvenation technologies (which are either pure sci fi or within reach depending on who you ask). It’d be interesting to see what ‘death do us part’ would begin to mean when youthful physical, mental and reproductive agility could be extended over many decades; and how traditional notions of romance, love, family, reproduction and sexual exclusivity might be challenged in these contexts.
Even if one finds such speculation unconvincing or uninteresting, it can nonetheless be acknowledged that the steady rise in average human healthspan and lifespan over recent decades has already bought these issues to the table, if in a slightly stealthy manner.
Interesting times ahead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
9 April 2009 at 9:42 pm
Sorry, forgot to add great post! Can’t wait to see your next post!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
9 April 2009 at 11:45 pm
Yep, excellent post. And I’m a hetero married guy. What I can’t stand is when I see other married people harangue single people, trying to sell the whole married thing like it’s THE club to be in. I’ve resolved never to do that. To each his own.
I will, however, say that monogamy is great if you dislike condoms!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
10 April 2009 at 12:12 am
Again I seem to be the lone dissenter – what’s wrong with condoms? Most men complain about them and seem to think sex is fundamentally different and inferior when wearing one. I don’t think they are a problem. And as I don’t want to have children, wearing one is essential to protect my financial independence. Once conception occurs I have no say in what happens, and I don’t plan on paying for one night for the next 18 years. Condoms are the only way men can contribute to contraception in a relationship.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
10 April 2009 at 11:26 am
Oh, I agree they are essential – in addition to the reasons you mentioned, there’s the whole, you know, disease thing. I just meant that in a strictly monogamous relationship, they aren’t necessary on that front (provided your partner is trustworthy). We’re going child-free – I’ve been snipped – so preventing conception isn’t the real issue for me. But yeah, I do indeed think sex is “fundamentally different and inferior” with a condom. That’s just me. I still wore the damn things when I was single though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
10 April 2009 at 4:30 pm
I’m with Mark on this one. Condoms are a necessary evil of a hedonistic, non-monogamous lifestyle and not needing them is the only plus of monogamous relationships (or polyamorous ones with a ‘fluid bond’ – I’m sure you can guess what that entails). Why necessary? Disease and conception prevention. Why evil? Purely for the fact they significantly dull the enjoyable physical sensations. I suspect everyone’s mileage may vary though, depending on how *ahem* sensitive they are and circumcised vs uncircumcised, types of condom used etc etc….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
10 April 2009 at 5:03 pm
I don’t agree with using surgery to fix a social circumstance, so I’ll never be having the snip, and condoms remain essential for contraception and safe(r) sex. As for the sensitivity, it’s a physical reality but one that is exaggerated in the mind. Besides, I’ve never heard of a woman complaining about a man who can last longer :-)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
11 April 2009 at 3:09 am
Brian,
Thanks for linking to us over at Onely and, most especially, for commenting on our use of the term “heteronormative.” We probably don’t post as much about sexuality as we could — but I know Christina and I are both definitely on your side on this one… To assume being single means that we don’t have/enjoy/pursue sex would be ridiculous!
We would love more male opinions on our blog, as we speak from a primarily female (and American) perspective, and I’m sure we occasionally leave other important single voices/perspectives out….
Best,
Lisa at Onely
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
11 April 2009 at 9:54 am
Thanks for commenting Lisa! I’d say the circumstances middle class city dwellers face are quite similar around the world – how do we live when there are so many valid alternatives to marry-work-die?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
11 April 2009 at 5:16 am
I definitely agree in theory with the friends-as-lovers concept as you outline it (ie. see three movies with friends–why not sleep with three different people?), but personally for me it doesn’t work because I don’t find people attractive unless I have a very strong emotional bond with them, and I don’t have that with many (or maybe any) of my platonic male friends.
Also, one of the commenters above mentioned that polyamory didn’t work for her/him because of the exhaustion factor. I hear that. Moreover, biochemically we are programmed to attribute more emotion and drama to people with whom we have sexual encounters (women suffer from this especially), and if someone has the emotional energy to survive that, great (as long as their partners have the same energy). But I don’t have it.
For me and Lisa, single doesn’t necessarily mean celibate, but unfortunately life just gets in the way of sex sometimes, especially when you don’t have a partner around all the time at a snap of your fingers (that is how it works, right? = ) )
Hmmmm I guess Onely should write about sex more now. I’ll make Lisa do that. = )
Christina
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
11 April 2009 at 1:55 pm
Thanks Christins for these comments. I’m still unsure how much biology and social conditioning determine our behaviour and values in sexual relations. So “biochemically we are programmed to attribute more emotion and drama to people with whom we have sexual encounters (women suffer from this especially)” is for me not only biology but a social construct. Biologically we are not able to adjust for contraception either, yet it is a social reality, so for me the social conditions are more important than the biological ones.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
20 April 2009 at 10:45 am
Wow!!! What a fab article Brian. Brendan, THANKYOU so much for your incredibly positive affirmation of PolyVic. Anyone in Melbourne who’s curious about honest ethical multiple loving connections is very welcome to drop in to a PolyVic discussion group (second Tues of the month) or social (last Sunday of the month) at Father Flanagan’s pub, cnr Alexandra Pde & Smith St in Collingwood.
Brian as a woman in two serious poly partnerships and with several other lovers, but who chooses to live alone, I couldn’t agree more with virtually every word you wrote.
Alex I do have one friend whom I consider to be naturally monogamous, in that he had almost no girlfriends before his wife, is in a deep healthy intimate relationship with her now, and has never looked at anyone else or thought about doing so or shown any interest. But he’s rare. Most people have other impulses that they repress, in my observation. Having a partner of 15 years, I know and affirm ‘the sense of meaning and commitment that comes from a history of shared experience, both good and bad’. I just don’t think you need to repress other impulses or be in a monogamous relationship to get that.
I utterly agree with this statement: “I wouldn’t engage in a friendship on the expectation that it would eventually play out, go cold, and be dropped, and it seems a self-fulfilling prophecy to engage in a sexual/love relationship on the same basis.” Eeeuuww. Who would. I challenge that it has anything to do with polyamory though. One of the best things about polyamory is that relationships have the freedom to shift and change, without having to ‘break up’ if the romance goes out of them or if you fall in love with someone else.
Ah Brian, I soooooooo agree that “The price hetero men pay for playing their established roles in society has barely begun to be examined, so there is much more to say about that.” There are a few bookshelves’ worth of books to write on that topic.
Polyamory isn’t for everyone and what Brendan said about energy is a big issue. (I have chronic fatigue syndrome so I should know… :-) ) It’s one of the biggest things that stops people from engaging in it. For me though there are so many deep positives that I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Again, great post Brian. Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
20 April 2009 at 11:16 am
Hi Anne, thanks for such a detailed comment! I do agree with what Alex says, but perhaps with a different perspective on it. No one goes into a relationship expecting or wanting it to end. But we change over time, and recognising this places us in the position of wanting ongoing relationships and acknowledging that they may end at the same time.
Negotiating our desires honestly and with dignity is what we should strive for, rather than repressing ourselves then resenting our partners for limiting our lives when in fact we impose the limits we resent on ourselves.
When or if will men have a revolution in self awareness and political consciousness about their gender, roles and social status equivalent to feminism? It’s long overdue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
26 May 2009 at 3:03 pm
Brian, I am so glad that Lisa at Onely posted a link to this article. I’m suspect that I am the writer of one of the “inane American single lifestyle websites”. And I very much agree with you that a discussion of sex is seriously lacking in my blog and in other single blogs. I am quite refreshed to find your honest and open discussion of sex! I don’t write about sex (although I have tried) because I haven’t figured it out yet. I mean, I know how to DO it, but I haven’t figured out how to have fun friendly sex outside of monogamy. In a culture bound by the monogamy model, I find it difficult to find folks who can enjoy non-monogamous sex without some hurt feelings or conflict or weirdness. I’m still trying to figure out exactly where I am located on the monogamy/polyamory spectrum. I might personally be, at this point in my life, rather sexually conservative but I don’t expect my readers to be which is why I very much appreciate what you have to say.
You write: “If lovers were more like friends, life would be rich with possibility.” Yes. Yes. Yes! But how to I cultivate this in my life when it so goes against the grain of our mainstream culture? I haven’t figured that out quite yet (but I am working on it).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
26 May 2009 at 3:38 pm
Polyamory is not simple! There can be hurt feelings, conflict and weirdness. Honesty about and acceptance of your own and others needs and wants can be confronting, but living an unfulfilled life is worse. When you ask most people why they want monogamy thay cannot give you an answer. I think it’s based primarily on the economics of heredity. As I’m deliberately barren, monogamy is fundamentally irrelevant. I also think I sometimes like the weirdness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
26 May 2009 at 5:15 pm
Regarding: || “If lovers were more like friends, life would be rich with possibility.” Yes. Yes. Yes! But how to I cultivate this in my life when it so goes against the grain of our mainstream culture? I haven’t figured that out quite yet (but I am working on it). ||
I’m currently carving for myself a new relationship model I’ve coined Friends-With-Intimacy (FWI). I never liked the way ‘friends-with-benefits’ reduced things to an arrangement for occasional ‘booty calls’. Polyamoury does not suit me because I find it too serious, too loaded with relationship baggage and having too many rules and commitments. I don’t have the time or energy for an intense relationship at this stage in my life.
(I promise this is leading to an actual response soon)
FWI is my attempt to have friends with whom there are no artificial social barriers to any and all kinds of real intimacy. It’s about being able to share and celebrate connections here and now with no false promises for a future and still running my own life independently.
(No really, response is coming)
So in marching to the beat of my own drum, I have to constantly explain it to friends and lovers. You very quickly find out who is open to the idea and who is not.
One particular online dating site has been fantastic for meeting the kinds of people who are most open to these ideas. By 1) being truly free to use in every way and 2) evaluating people’s compatibilities based on the results of thousands of quizzes. People I match well with based on it’s algorithms have been the kinds of people I’m looking for. I’m not here to spruik like some crazy warehouse guy it but I’ll mention the address for those who may find it useful: http://www.okcupid.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
27 May 2009 at 10:42 am
That site looks interesting, and answering the questions is addictive! Before I knew it I had answered over 140…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0